TEL AVIV — A striking feature of the Israeli political landscape in
recent months has been the absence of a serious debate among national security figures on the issue of
the threat of war with Iran.

It is well-known that many prominent former military and intelligence
officials believe an attack on Iran would be disastrous for Israel.
After an initial blast at the idea of striking Iran by two former
high-ranking officials last year, however, very little has been heard
from such national security figures.

The reason for this silence on the part of the national security sector,
just as the Israeli threat of war was escalating sharply, appears to be
a widespread view among Israeli national security analysts that Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to attack is a highly successful
bluff.

Some critics of Netanyahu’s threat to go war against Iran have expressed
concern about the failure of national security figures to speak out
publicly against the policy. Former Jerusalem Post columnist Larry
Derfner, who now blogs for the independent 972mag.com, wrote
last month that there are “crowds” of former military and intelligence
officials who privately oppose an attack on Iran and could slow the
“march to war” by speaking to the news media.

But he complained that “Israelis aren’t hearing their voices.”

Yossi Alpher, a former Mossad analyst and later head of the Jaffee
Center for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, has noted
the same problem. “Plenty of people are calling for public debate on the
issue of striking Iran,” he told IPS in an interview. “But it isn’t
happening.”

Former Mossad director Meir Dagan launched the first attack on
Netanyahu’s policy by a former national security official last June,
asserting that an attack on Iran would provoke a regional war and would
ensure that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons.

Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit, who was chief of military intelligence in the
1970s, also dissociated himself with the policy, declaring, “An
Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear reactor will lead to the liquidation of
Israel.”

Like Dagan, Gazit warned that it would cause Iran to immediately decide
to become a nuclear power, and he added that it would increase
international pressures for the abandonment of “the territories.”

Those shots across Netanyahu’s bow have not been followed, however, by
similar criticisms by other former military and intelligence figures.

In fact, Gazit himself appeared to backtrack from his earlier harsh
verdict on the option of attacking Iran in a recent television
interview.

On Russia Today on March 12, Gazit did not voice any of his previous
objections to the threatened Israeli strike against Iran. Instead he
emphasized the readiness of Israel to carry out a strike, even without
U.S. approval if necessary, played down the cost to Israel of an Iranian
response, and said an Israeli strike would result in delaying the
Iranian nuclear program by “two or three years at least.”

Gazit reaffirmed to IPS, however, that he has not changed his mind about
the dangers to Israel attending a strike against Iran he had raised
last June.

The publicly discussed reason for the absence of dissent from the
national security sector is lack of information. Nathan Sharony, who
heads the Council of Peace, with over 1,000 former high-ranking security
officials with dovish views, told Derfner the reason ex–national
security officials were not speaking up was that they lack the “solid
information” necessary to do so.

Gazit gave IPS the same explanation for the failure of former officials to oppose a strike against Iran publicly.

But the main reasons for opposing war with Iran do not require access to
inside information. The more compelling explanation for the silence of
former military and intelligence officers is that they, like journalists
and other policy analysts, think that Netanyahu is probably bluffing
and they perceive the bluff as working.

Retired Brig. Gen. Uzi Rubin, the former head of Israel’s missile
defense program, recalls being on a television program a few months ago
with Ari Shavit, senior correspondent at Haaretz, on which Shavit
declared, “Netanyahu is playing poker for all of us. We shouldn’t call
out his cards.”

Shavit was suggesting that the success of the prime minister in the
high-stakes poker game requires that influential Israelis not question
his
claims about Israel’s willingness and capability to attack Iran’s
nuclear sites.

That struck a Rubin as a significant factor in the politics surrounding
Netanyahu’s policy. “People who think we shouldn’t attack Iran believe
Netanyahu is playing poker,” said Rubin in an interview with IPS. “So
they think they shouldn’t speak up.”

“Netanyahu speaks like he’s very convinced Iran has to be stopped by
force,” said the former missile defense chief. “Does he mean it?” Rubin
said he doesn’t know the answer.

Alpher agrees. He told IPS the reason high-profile expressions of
dissent by Dagan and a few others have not provoked more lively debate
on Iran policy among national security figures is that “they don’t want
to spoil Bibi’s successful bluster.”

Netanyahu’s bluffing on Iran has “kept the international community on
edge,”Alpher suggested, and thus achieved the latest round of sanctions
and heavier pressure on Iran.

Both the poker metaphor and the view that he has been successful at
it have been central elements in media coverage of Netanyahu’s policy
in recent weeks.

While the prime minister was in Washington last month, Aluf Benn, the
editor-in-chief of Haaretz, wrote that Netanyahu had “managed to
convince the world that Israel is on the verge of a preemptive war” and
that he is “playing poker and hiding his most important card — the IDF’s
true capabilities to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations.”

Just last week, Benn’s colleague, Shavit, referred to the threat to
attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of 2012 that he and a
handful of other journalists had heard from senior officials. Shavit
acknowledged, however, that “we cannot exclude the possibility that
senior Israeli officials briefing us are bluffing,” noting that the
officials had a “vested interest” in exploiting such a threat.

One factor that may have fed the reluctance of some former military and
intelligence officials to go public with criticism of the option of war
against Iran is that Netanyahu has a reputation for being far less
aggressive on Iran in practice than his rhetoric would indicate.

Benn told IPS there is a perception of Netanyahu as a “hesitant
politician who would not dare to attack without American permission.”

A former national security official who did not wish to be identified
told IPS that some people who have worked with Netanyahu have said he is less
decisive than former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Iran, although he
personally disagrees with that assessment.

The widespread impression among the Israeli national security elite and
press corps that Netanyahu’s threat of war against Iran is a bluff does
not guarantee that Netanyahu will not attack Iran. But it does help
explain why there has not been a much bigger outcry against a war option
that is widely regarded as irrational for Israel.

I suspect the reason why the usual suspects are silent is that they understand that the victim role is being lost and Iran looks like the victim of the greedy. Is there anyone who believes that Iran is a threat to the pit bull nation of Israel? Does anyone believe that Israel is not at best terrible in its occupation of Gaza? Is there anyone who believes that the 'settlers" are not funded thugs to steal land?
Add it all together and Israel does not look like the refugee of those poor victims. They had succeeds in looking very much like the real problem to world peace. The USA and europe is broke and it will be a difficult time for those who have lived their lives as welfare queens. Who will pay for the good life now. Who will buy our expensive military toys?

Carpet bombing of Israel – Dahiya strategy will be only solution for freedom loving people/nations if Humanity makes the choice to protect human live on this planet. Fanatical regime based on terrorism, lies and deception should not have place among civilised people….Judaism should replace "Evil colonial, brutal ideology Zionism". But maybe is to late , regime sits on stockpile of undeclared WMD, some of their fanatical eligious leaders call for enslavement Goims, preach superiority, etc. If we look back on days of Hitlers "Pure race policy", how could that happened all over again within 70 years from last WW?

I think there could be a lot of reasons different reasons people are not speaking up. One could be that some who were originally against a strike may have changed their mind and now think it actually could work and is a good idea. Another could be that some have concluded there's simply nothing they can do about it at this time, and publicly discussing potential pros and cons could give Iran ideas Iran hasn't otherwise considered. Another could be peer pressure, as Bibi has essentially told everyone inside the government to shut it–so it wouldn't surprise me if this call for collective silence hasn't extended outside the government. I could see a call for everyone to shut it as a collective dissent squashing mechanism in the same way "support the troops" or "we need to stand together as not to appear weak and give aid to the enemy" type deal. Maybe this is done under a guise of convincing people they must collectively "bluff"…ie. shut their mouths and not show dissent,.. Makes sense…

Israelis are fond of reminiscing about the successful demolition of Iraq's Osirak in 1981 and compare it with the potential bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. But they should remember that Saddam’s Iraq at the time of Israel’s bombing was fighting the most intensive and crucial stage of its long war with Iran.
PM Begin knew that all of Saddam’s military might was pointing east towards Iran, and that the likelihood of an Iraqi retaliation against Israel was minimal: Saddam did not have long range missiles, and the potential threat from Iraqi jetfighters could easily be contained by the IAF.
What is more, in 1981, at the time of Osirak bombing, there was no Hezbollah to threaten Israel with tens of thousands of missiles.
Even then; Ariel Sharon recalls the Begin cabinet decision approving the attack on Osirak “as the most difficult in Israel’s history” he could remember.
It is also good to remember that unlike Netanyahu Sharon never bluffed. He never talked about bombing Iran even when Iran was much more vulnerable and less able to retaliate.

The decision to go to war with Iran constitutes the most momentous strategic decision for the United States in many decades. It will not be taken lightly as it is often suggested.
Bluffing with “All options are on the table”, and actually embarking on a bombing campaign with dire consequences for the attacker(s) are two very different things.
Netanyahu can keep on bluffing without any loss of credibility; because at the end – when no Israeli attack has materialized – he could say that the Americans and Europeans prevented him from eliminating the Iranian existential threat to Israel. And he will have plenty of media evidence to back him up on that claim.
But Israel will never attack Iran directly; because there is no precedence for Jewish State taking big risks in its wars. And when Israel does become reckless and get a bloody nose – Lebanon war of 2006 comes to mind here – they tend to become extra careful planning a next military campaign.
Israelis are fond of reminiscing about the successful demolition of Iraq's Osirak in 1981 and compare it with the potential bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. But they should remember that Saddam’s Iraq at the time of Israel’s bombing was fighting the most intensive and crucial stage of its long war with Iran.
PM Begin knew that all of Saddam’s military might was pointing east towards Iran, and that the likelihood of an Iraqi retaliation against Israel was minimal: Saddam did not have long range missiles, and the potential threat from Iraqi jetfighters could easily be contained by the IAF.
What is more, in 1981, at the time of Osirak bombing, there was no Hezbollah to threaten Israel with tens of thousands of missiles.
Even then; Ariel Sharon recalls the Begin cabinet decision approving the attack on Osirak “as the most difficult in Israel’s history” he could remember.
It is also good to remember that unlike Netanyahu Sharon never bluffed. He never talked about bombing Iran even when Iran was much more vulnerable and less able to retaliate

[…] It is well-known that many prominent former military and intelligence officials believe an attack on Iran would be disastrous for Israel. After an initial blast at the idea of striking Iran by two former high-ranking officials last year, however, very little has been heard from such national security figures. The reason for this silence on the part of the national security sector, just as the Israeli threat of war was escalating sharply, appears to be a widespread view among Israeli national security analysts that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to attack is a highly successful bluff. http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/04/02/israeli-experts-mum-on-iran-attack-to-support-bibis-bl… […]

[…] threat of Israeli military action is a phony issue being ratcheted up by both Washington and Tel Aviv purely for dramatic effect: we are supposed to believe the Israelis are straining at the leash, and […]

[…] threat of Israeli military action is a phony issue being ratcheted up by both Washington and Tel Aviv purely for dramatic effect: we are supposed to believe the Israelis are straining at the leash, […]

[…] threat of Israeli military action is a phony issue being ratcheted up by both Washington and Tel Aviv purely for dramatic effect: we are supposed to believe the Israelis are straining at the leash, and […]

[…] threat of Israeli military action is a phony issue being ratcheted up by both Washington and Tel Avivpurely for dramatic effect: we are supposed to believe the Israelis are straining at the leash, and […]